A good start is provided at www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/01/11/plasmoids-are-the-power/ … which begins – what causes energetic emissions from galactic cores? This is the essence of the black hole hypothesis as a supermassive anomaly at the centre of our galaxy is apparently, in the modelling process, tearing stars apart and flinging their remains into space at speeds of 10,000km a second. Shredded stars then condense into planet sized objects etc. This is a less than subtle change in emphasis as a few years ago the role of black holes was to gobble up everything on the dinner table – basically anything that came anywhere near the supposed black hole's opening, a sort of galactic giant sea anemone. It seems the new thinking is that black holes snap up passing stars but instead of using them to create super dense mass they now bite them to pieces and spit them out. This appears to be a big change in the theory but never mind, it is black holes themselves that vex cosmologists. Stephen Smith points out that black holes cannot actually be seen by space telescopes or sensors but astrophysicists, he says, are convinced they exist because of their effects. It all sounds a bit like a -great wheeze' – smoke and mirrors. As matter spins around a black hole lip at extreme velocities mainstream opinion visualises this as friction creating intense heat and thereby generating x-rays and ultra-violet light (which can be monitored) and these emissions are interpreted as indirect evidence of black holes.
Smith puts the situation rather succinctly – and as brief as possible. The nub is that laboratory experiments can create such high energy by accelerating particles in an electric field – the missing dimension in cosmological theories (or to be more precise, the unmodelled factor that might make a big difference). Are black holes galactic versions of solar flares – but much bigger?
At www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2017/01/the-black-hole-at-the-birth-of-the… … we are told Big Bang poses a Big Question. What put the bang into the Creation of the universe? Does the universe require a 'creation story' and if so what sparked the Big Bang and set creation, an expanding universe, into motion? A very super and very much super black hole has been proposed for kick starting Big Bang – but is this a viable explanation? Researchers from Waterloo University (Ottawa) and the Perimeter Institute (in California) have been looking at the issues involved and the idea of a four dimensional star collapsing into a black hole. In this theory the universe formed out of the debris ejected when this occurred, and we also informed that as far as most cosmologists concerned the most plausible explanation for the subsequent uniformity in the universe came about after the beginning of time due some unknown form of energy (dark matter). This unseen energy caused the young universe to inflate like a balloon at a rate that was faster than the speed of light. A small patch within a uniform temperature (the small percentage of dark matter) therefore allowed the creation of the vast universe we see today (or rather, that astronomers see in space telescopes) … and so on. However, the team went on to show that a black hole may not have been responsible as they are reputedly chaotic and our universe has uniformity (see also https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/news/black-hole-birth-universe ). For a longer read go to https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-black-hole-that-birthed-t… … which provides us with more detail on the process leading up to the theory in the heads of the researchers. It relies on the standard interpretation of black holes. If black holes have an electric universe origin it is nonsense – but it is also a sincere attempt to explain Big Bang in the context of current mainstream cosmological models. In the process we get to understand Big Bang is not such a strong consensus piece of science as we are led to believe by media and science authors over the years.